ArticleCureus2025
Characteristics of Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction Post Ileostomy Reversal: A Retrospective Study and Scoping Review of the Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonic pseudo-obstruction (CPO) is characterized by dilatation of the colon without an anatomical or mechanical obstruction. There are multiple etiologies that may lead to this phenomenon, including post-major abdominal or pelvic surgery, critical illness states, drug-induced effects, and severe electrolyte imbalances, to name a few. An ileostomy closure is a commonly performed surgical procedure that restores the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract post-significant previous colorectal resection. Common complications have been known to occur, such as small bowel ileus, anastomotic leak, wound site infections; however, reports of CPO post-ileostomy closure have not been well reported or studied. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients treated for CPO after loop ileostomy closure and to identify the existing evidence in the literature on this uncommon phenomenon. We conducted a retrospective study of all patients from Princess Alexandra Hospital who developed CPO after ileostomy closure in the past 10 years. Electronic records were accessed to find patient demographic and clinical details, including primary surgery, whether or not radiation was applied, co-morbidities, as well as hospital length of stay and post-operative outcomes. Subsequently, a scoping review was conducted of literature to identify all studies reporting CPO after ileostomy closure. Comparisons were made between our results and those of the scoping review. Nine patients were included in our retrospective study. Seven patients required ileostomy after ultra-low anterior resection (ULAR) for cancer, and two patients for perforated diverticulitis. Mean time to reversal was 7.78 months. Three patients had neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, and three patients had neoadjuvant therapy only. CPO diagnosis was made on radiological imaging, and the mean length of hospital stay for all patients was 9.5 days. Mean CPO resolution time was 4.8 days. Scoping review identified 200 studies; however, only one study qualified for inclusion. Five patients were included who underwent ULAR with ileostomy, with four patients requiring neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy. Mean time to reversal was 8.3 months. Both the retrospective study and scoping review found similar patient characteristics in those who developed CPO post-ileostomy closure. In particular, it would appear that in an irradiated pelvis, the risk of CPO development appeared higher; however, larger patient studies are required to inform better statistical analyses and draw more correlations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.